Zoepfel-Thuline v. Black Hawk College, 145 N.E.3d 48

Trudy Zoepfel-Thuline taught part-time GED classes for Black Hawk College and signed semester-by-semester contracts subject to cancellation.
In 2009–2010 she twice observed photocopies of pornographic images in her supervisor David Harris's locked desk; she had no authorization or reason to access his desk.
She reported the images to HR; the College performed a limited computer sweep but did not interview Harris at that time; Harris later stated he found the prints in a public lab printer and stored them to confront a student.
After HR required mutual “expectations lists,” Zoepfel resisted meetings and experienced delayed/withheld contract offers for Fall 2010 and Fall 2011; she filed DHR complaints in Jan–Feb 2011 (retaliation) and Feb 2011 (sexual harassment), and another retaliation complaint in July 2011.
Zoepfel later filed two retaliation suits in circuit court alleging the College retaliated first by delaying offers and later by terminating her for reporting sexual harassment; the College moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the College, finding Zoepfel could not show she reasonably and in good faith believed she was subjected to sexual harassment, so her opposition/participation claims were not protected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zoepfel engaged in protected activity when she reported/complained about the photos and later filed DHR charges	Zoepfel argues her subjective and objective belief that she was subjected to sexual harassment was reasonable and in good faith, making her reports and DHR filings protected opposition/participation activity	College contends the undisputed facts show no "conduct" directed at Zoepfel, so no reasonable person could deem the situation sexual harassment; therefore reports/filings were not protected	Court held filing/complaints were not protected because no reasonable person could conclude sexual harassment occurred given lack of harassment conduct toward Zoepfel and photos being in supervisor's private drawer
Whether the "reasonable and in good faith" standard applies to participation-clause retaliation claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act	Zoepfel urged protections for participation even if the underlying harassment claim was weak	College argued Illinois statutory language differs but comparable federal standards apply; protections shouldn't extend to objectively baseless claims	Court held the "reasonable and in good faith" requirement applies to both opposition and participation clauses to prevent misuse; Zoepfel's underlying harassment claim failed that standard

Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (Ill. 2004) (summary judgment de novo standard)
Mattson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 359 F.3d 885 (7th Cir. 2004) ("reasonable and in good faith" requirement protects genuine internal complaints and applies to opposition and participation theories)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile work environment actionable when sufficiently severe or pervasive)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (objective and subjective standard for hostile work environment)
Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 131 Ill. 2d 172 (Ill. 1989) (Illinois courts adopt federal Title VII analytical framework)
Wilson v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 187 Ill. 2d 369 (Ill. 1999) (state courts should give weight to Seventh Circuit precedent for uniformity)
National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (EEOC guidelines not entitled to Chevron-level deference)
Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, 159 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 1994) (distinguishing Illinois Human Rights Act from Title VII in certain contexts)